Delhi High Court held that cancellation of GST registration with retrospective effect merely because the taxpayer has not filed returns for some period not justified. Court directed to cancel registration from date of issuance of SCN.
Delhi High Court held that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the limb i.e. concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income not valid. Accordingly, penalty set aside.
The controversy in the present appeal relates to inclusion of an entity named E4e Healthcare Business Services Private Limited, as a comparable entity for benchmarking the international transaction of provision of IT-enabled services.
Putting together a structure of plywood sheets cannot be construed as constructing a residential house. The Inspector had also reported that there was no electricity or water connection on the land and electricity was used by genset.
Delhi High Court held that appeal pertaining to period prior to 01 April 2005 is maintainable under Section 81 of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (DVAT) instead of section 45 of the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 since appeal is preferred after 01 April 2005.
Niraj Silk Mills Vs Commissioner of Customs (ICD) (Delhi High Court) Niraj Silk Mills/Hanuman Prasad and Sons/Manavi Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs – Delhi High Court – 27/11/2024 – Brief Analysis. The recent legal proceedings addressed appeals from Niraj Silk Mills and Hanuman Prasad and Sons against the Commissioner of Customs (ICD), Patparganj, […]
The present appeal is filed by the revenue. Notably, the respondent is a Custom Broker. It was alleged that certain exports facilitated by the respondent which were made by the exporters, who are allegedly found to be non-existent at their principal place of business.
The petitioner sold his residential property and based on an advise invested the sale proceed in the bonds issued by the Respondent – Power Finance Corporation in order to avail the benefit of capital gain tax exemption.
In Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), the Court concluded that, while the faceless system centralizes case handling through the NFAC, this framework does not completely replace or nullify the JAO‘s role.
Delhi High Court held that dismissed the petition as adequate efficacious alternative remedy is available by way of filing an appeal under section 16 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets and Imposition of Tax) Act.
